Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Jul 2009 17:10 UTC
Apple The discussion around whether or not jailbreaking iPhones should be exempt from the DMCA has just reached a level of ridiculousness that words can't really describe any longer. As some of you might know, Apple and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are in a tussle with one another over whether or not the US Copyright Office should put an exemption in the DMCA allowing the jailbreaking of iPhones. Apple's reasoning for why no exemption should be made is rather... Over-the-top.
Thread beginning with comment 376128
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: oh joy
by l3v1 on Thu 30th Jul 2009 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE: oh joy"
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

Something make you avoid to be locked on a closed platform. First, help improve an alternative open platform. Second, insist on use product possessing good interoperability.


If there are no such products (that you could choose to use instead of said locked-down ones), or the ones that are available are far inferior, than the choice in reality is not a choice. Unless you can manufacture your own hardware, that is (since open software is more easier to come by). A collegue of mine wants to by a touchscreen phone, went in to a local vodafone shop to try out what they have, and came out totally disappointed. Until a locked-down device provides higher usability and usefulness even in its locked-down state than the others, there'll be no incentive for the locker to release the lock, since it has tangible control over the crowd.

With a new, open, non-locked, whetever else platform, your first move needs to be to convince the average joe crowd (there is strength in numbers, we all should know that by now, you need momentum to achieve anything) to use your device, and the iPhone being where it is, this would be hard.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: oh joy
by middleware on Fri 31st Jul 2009 00:36 in reply to "RE[2]: oh joy"
middleware Member since:
2006-05-11

If there are no such products (that you could choose to use instead of said locked-down ones), or the ones that are available are far inferior, than the choice in reality is not a choice. Unless you can manufacture your own hardware, that is (since open software is more easier to come by). A collegue of mine wants to by a touchscreen phone, went in to a local vodafone shop to try out what they have, and came out totally disappointed.


In my opinion, Apple does not prevent any vendor to provide better alternative. It is just a fact that no one else has already provide a better one. So we can claim a vendor is locking people if it make any other vendor can't provide a better alternative by marketing or sales strategy in the future. But we can NOT claim so by just the fact that there is still not a second vendor appears.

Until a locked-down device provides higher usability and usefulness even in its locked-down state than the others, there'll be no incentive for the locker to release the lock, since it has tangible control over the crowd.


There are two kinds of lock, "lock-down" as how Office locks user and "lock-down" as how Apple seal iPhone. I think they are different. Office locks users by the "network effect", that is, as long as your friends use .doc, you will have to use Office regardless what quality and usefulness it provides. So if you say "a locked-down device provides higher usability and usefulness", you must not mean this kind of lock. Can't you call your friends having iPhones by another type of phone? So neither you and your friends locked by having or not having an iPhone.

Then for the "lock" as seal, why you think just the first vendor seal its product will hinder the second vendor provide better alternative? Actually a second vendor does not have to provide better alternative, it just need to provide close enough alternative then the first vendor will have incentive to improve its product. And that not kind of control over the crowd. People still have the choice.

Reply Parent Score: 1